Captain William Kidd and Others of the BuccaneersAbbott, John S. C. (John Stevens Cabot)
History
Captain William Kidd and Others of the Buccaneers
Abbott, John S. C. (John Stevens Cabot)
Buccaneers; Kidd, William, -1701; Pirates
At the close of the year 1700, the papers which had been sent for
arrived from the East Indies. A petition came from several of the
East-Indian merchants, subjects of the King of Persia, giving a minute
recital of the capture of the Quedagh Merchant, and praying that the
property of which they had thus been robbed, and much of which had been
conveyed to the North American colonies, might be restored to them.
A very distinguished East Indian, by the name of Cogi Baba, came to
London in behalf of the petitioners. He was summoned to appear before
the House of Commons. At the same time Kidd himself was brought from
his prison before the bar.
After an examination, a motion was made to the House to declare the
grant made to the Earl of Bellomont and others of the company, of all
the treasure taken by Kidd, to be null and void. But this motion was
negatived. A vote was then taken requesting the king to institute
immediate proceedings against Captain Kidd for piracy and murder. He
was accordingly brought to trial, under this indictment, at the Old
Bailey, in the year 1701.
Several of Kidd’s confederates were tried with him. Some of them
pleaded the king’s pardon, saying that they had surrendered themselves
within the time limited in the royal proclamation. The governor of New
Jersey, Colonel Bass, then in court, testified to the truth of this
assertion, the surrender having been made to him.
To this it was replied, “There were four commissioners named in
the proclamation, Thomas Warren, Israel Hayes, Peter Delanoye, and
Christopher Pollard. These commissioners were sent to America to
receive the submission of such pirates as should surrender. No other
persons were entitled, to receive their surrender. They therefore have
not complied with the conditions of the proclamation.”
They were condemned and hanged. One of the crew, Darby Mullens, made
the following strong defence:
“I served under the king’s commission. I could not therefore disobey
my commander, without exposing myself to the most severe punishment.
Whenever a ship goes out upon any expedition, under the king’s
commission, the men are never allowed to call their officers to
account. Implicit obedience is required of them. Any other course would
destroy all discipline. If anything unlawful is done, the officers
are to answer for it, for the men, in obeying orders, only do what is
imperiously their duty.”
The court replied, “When a man is acting under a commission, he is
justified only in doing that which is lawful, not in that which is
unlawful.”
The prisoner responded, “I stand in need of nothing to justify me in
what is lawful. But the case of a seaman is very hard, if he is exposed
to being scourged or shot if he refuse to obey his commander, and of
being hung if he obey him. If the seaman were allowed to dispute the
orders of his captain, there could be no such thing as command kept up
at sea.”
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account